Yes, Your Nose Ring Just Looks Like a Speck of Glitter, But You're Still Fired

I was filling out an application for employment recently when I was perusing their workplace image policy. My eyes came to rest on what I assume is a fairly common part of the policy of many companies but, all the same, it wrinkled my nose a bit. The image policy laid out, in very direct terms, that visible facial piercings and visible tattoos were not allowed in the workplace. If you had any visible facial piercings or visible tattoos, you would not be offered a position.

There's a part of me that gets it, really. I mean, who wants to hire this guy?

But, at the same time, that is FUCKING HORRIFYING. As a person who just recently retired his own facial piercing and has a tattoo in a very visible area (inner forearm), I find it kind of appalling that companies are still allowed to reject people based on physical appearance rather than qualifications for the position. I feel like people with tattoos and facial piercings should be allowed the same non-discrimination rights in the hiring process as anyone else

There are two traditional arguments against this. The first argument is that, unlike the aspects of physical appearance that are currently covered under non-discrimination laws, visible tattoos and facial piercings are a choice. Since you made that choice, you should deal with the consequences. The thinking behind this idea isn't necessarily flawed until you understand that the consequences don't fit the action. In short, you are punishing people for taking a non-traditional interest in their physical appearance. Frankly, that seems stupid. By that logic, we should be able to fire people who wear gaudy fake nails or too much makeup, and I couldn't have made it through my adolescence without The Nanny.

The second line of thinking is that getting a facial piercing or visible tattoo is a sign of poor judgment, something that could cast doubts on your employer's opinion of you. The thought process follows that "if they thought getting a tattoo was a good idea, how can I trust them to make important company decisions." Again, this logic is severly flawed. In fact, its a poor judgment call in and of itself. It doesn't follow that every facial piercing or visible tattoo is a bad idea. Sure, some of them are, but it should be taken on an individual basis as opposed to blanketing an entire group of people.

Look, I'm not saying every company needs to hire someone who looks like the chick from L.A. Ink.

But please let's continue no longer with assuming that the dude with tats shouldn't get a job and the dude who is clean should. Outward appearances do mean something, yes, but they're not as important as we'd like to think. After all, this guy was a serial killer: